Negligence Liability of Public Authorities

Question: Discuss about the Negligence Liability of Public Authorities. Answer: Introduction Res Ipsa Loquitur is another term of negligence or carelessness. When any party breaches the duty of care by doing any negligence or careless act, then the innocent party is harmed. Everyone should follow the duty of care honestly. In that case if the harmed party has behaved in negligent way than it does not matter but the person who is guilty can be sued and on the basis of evidence can whether asked penalty or imprisoned. The doctrine says, the negligence is proved itself and the plaintiff does not have to provide any evidence (Blair and Squires, 2006). In the assignment some cases are given and with the help of legal rules the case is described below. As per duty of care, any person during duty should be honest and do it with dignity towards the work without any carelessness but if the rules of duty of care are violated then it can be termed as liability of tort or liability of negligence. In this case, there are three parties, Mercury, Venus and Nimbus. A courier delivery van was needed to be operated and Mercury was recruited by Venus for that. As driving motor vehicle needs training, so Mercury was trained by Venus. A medical checkup was done by a doctor Nimbus and the report stated that, because of drinking habit of Mercury he feels asleep while driving but because of Mercurys request he omitted the information from Venus. An accident was done by Mercury as he felled asleep while driving the van and Pluto was injured by that. In this case the Res Ipsa Loquitur or negligence is done by both Mercury and Nimbus who did his medical checkup (Cameron, 2004). As per English law, both breached the duty of care. It was the duty of the doctor (Nimbus) not to hide the original report of Mercury because, the question arise about a life of a person which depends on a driver who drives vehicle in road. Mercury is equally responsible for breaching duty of care because he was drunk during duty hours which are against English law (Godkin and Markwell, 2003). Not only that but the doctor has done civil wrong which falls under tort. He has intentionally not given the correct report to Venus which is not allowed. This negligence falls under tort liability of UK and Civil Liability act, 2002 of Australia (Cullen, 2002). It is a civil duty of a doctor to provide correct report but Nimbus as violated his civil duty rules and this is liability of tort, breach of duty of care and Res Ipsa Loquitur or negligence (Birks and Pretto, 2002). As per comparative negligence rules, the plaintiff (Pluto) can file lawsuit against Mercury and as Mercury is guilty, so under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, for the alleged negligence and causing harm to Mercury he will not be allowed to do counter claim or provide any evidence for his own support and he has to give the charges of damage of the plaintiff (Pluto) (Weissenberger, McFarland and Page, 2001). He has to give the cost of treatment to Pluto. Even, if Pluto wants then he can sue the doctor (Nimbus) to the court because he has breached his civil liability by hiding the reports of Mercurys wrong habit. As per section 3(b) of Civil liability act, the court cancel the license of the doctor or can ask compensation and if Mercury and Nimbus is not capable to give the compensation then they can be imprisoned under English law (Cullen, 2002). As per section 132 of Motor vehicle act 1988 Pluto can claim damages for his accident. If Mercury does not give penalty or compensation to Pluto, then he can be imprisoned for 10 years according to English law (Mukherjee, 2006). Nimbus can be punished under Section 1 of Fraud act of 2006, because he has breached the duty of care and not only that but he has also given wrong medical report to Venus the employer of Mercury. He has hidden his bad habit of drinking and falling asleep at any moment. This is a fraud which he did to save Mercury but other people came in risk because of his wrong support which he did to Mercury. For that reason his medical license can be cancelled if Pluto file law suit against him. Even Venus may be in problem because Mercury was employer under him and the accident took place during duty hours. So he becomes vicarious liable and for that reason damages of Pluto can be charged from him if Mercury is unable to give the compensation for his treatment. Venus is unaware of the bad habit of Mercury but as he is the employer of Mercury, so he is also responsible to check the condition and habits of the employees and for that reason he is vicariously liable and he has to give penalty for the damages of Pluto. If Pluto trusts on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, then he can get justice from the court because the case is entirely on his favor and as per doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, the defendant cannot counter claim on the claims of Plaintiff (Personal injury and Civil Liability act, 2011). As per common law of tort, doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, the negligence is inferred in nature of any injury or accident and the evidence of the defendant is over looked as per rul es. The presumption of interference is related to negligence which does not falls under Substantive law but it is mandatory that the Plaintiff (Pluto) should establish Preponderance of Evidence which caused injury to the plaintiff (Pluto). Pluto can also give the circumstantial evidence showing the fault of the defendant (Mercury). Here Nimbus has done Medical Malpractice by giving wrong information to Venus which is crime under the eye of law. Pluto can apply Res Ipsa on this negligence case and he can also apply it on the doctor Nimbus. On these factors the proof can be given to court by Pluto and on that evidence the court can order to give the damages to Pluto and Mercury, Nimbus and Venus is bound to fulfill the order of the court. Claim of negligence The plaintiff (Pluto) can raise various claims because of the injury damages which he has faced because of negligence done by Mercury. Pluto is personally injured, so he can argue to fix his damages by asking medical expenses from mercury and Venus. Economic compensation can be charged by Pluto in this case. As the injury occurred because of negligent action of Mercury, so duty to mitigate damages should be ordered by the court to the defendant. Another thing which Pluto can argue can be on Breach of duty. In this concept Pluto can show the causation of negligences nature of the injury which he has faced and he can claim for medical care and repair of the things which he had with during the accident. If Pluto has got some major injury then he can claim future medical expenses from Venus and Mercury. Even because of the accident, Pluto may also lose the earning capacity which can affect his profession and life, for that reason liability comes on Venus, Mercury and Nimbus. They also ha ve to provide a solution through which Pluto does not face any loss. The wages which Pluto has lost also has to be given by Venus and Mercury because they are responsible for the loss of the money which he faced because he had to take leave from his profession because of the accident. He can also claim punitive damages because of his injury (Schlueter, 2005). Even because of his accident he may have died, so the court can punish Mercury under Motor vehicle act 1988 under section 132. If Mercury and Venus do not give any compensation then as per Motor vehicle act they can be punished. Nimbus also has to give some share of punitive damages to Pluto because he is equally responsible for the loss and damage of Pluto. If he do not pay the damages to Pluto (Plaintiff), then he will be punished under civil liability act for doing civil wrong by breaching the duty of care as a doctor and he can also be imprisoned under section 1 of Fraud act 2006 (Farrell, Ladenburg and Yeo, 2007). As per English law if any tort liability and liability of negligence found then, the court will punish the defendant. As plaintiff is harmed and he is also an innocent party, so in this case his damages should be fulfilled and court has to support him because of his loss. All this are the legal arguments which the plaintiff Pluto can raise in support of claim of negligence. Defense on lawsuit There are two separate categories of defenses: Factual defenses and Legal defenses. The claims are prohibited by some rules in case of Legal defenses. The defense which depends on comparative negligence of mitigating damages is known as Factual defense (Godkin and Markwell, 2003). There are some defenses which Pluto has lawsuit. Those defendants are described below: Venus Venus has hired Mercury in his company for delivering courier through his van. So it is his responsibility that, he should check what kind of employee he is recruiting. He should have checked the previous records of Mercury before appointing him. These are his faults or negligence, so he is vicariously liable for the accident of Pluto. During duty hours Mercury fall asleep because of his drinking habit and for that reason accident occurred. Mercury did the careless or negligible act during duty hours, so Venus is vicariously liable for the accident of Pluto and Pluto can charge punitive damages as per English law (Godkin and Markwell, 2003). If Mercury is financially inefficient to pay the compensation, then he will be imprisoned but as an employer of Mercury, Venus has to pay the damages of Pluto whether it is punitive damage by giving material damage or whether it is claim for medical treatment (Pratt, 2000). If Venus does not give damages to Pluto then, he can claim lawsuit agains t him. The court can cancel the license of the business of Venus because of his vicarious liability (Vicarious liability, 2001). By this way Pluto can prevail law suit against Venus on the consequence of his damage for which Venus is responsible or vicariously liable because Mercury is the defendant and he is only the defendant of Venus. Nimbus Nimbus is the doctor who did medical examination of Mercury and he found that he has bad habit of drinking while driving car and he falls asleep while he is in drunken condition but as Mercury requested the doctor to hide the report, so Nimbus did not provide that report to Venus. For that reason the accident occurred by Mercury. So in this case Nimbus is the main responsible person for the accident of Pluto. Pluto can lawsuit against Nimbus, even Venus can also file complaint against Nimbus for providing wrong report. As per civil law it is a crime which Nimbus did by breaching duty of care intentionally. So Nimbus has to give equal compensation to Pluto otherwise as per Civil liability act he would be imprisoned under law for doing civil wrong or negligence of tort. As he has provided wrong report, so Venus and Pluto both can law suit him under Fraud act 2006 and Medical malpractice. As per these acts his license may be cancelled or he may be imprisoned under law for 10 years (Post -legislative assessment of the Fraud Act 2006, 2012). All these are the defenses which Pluto reasonably can follow against the doctor (Nimbus) (Personal injury and Civil Liability act, 2011). Conclusion This assignment can be concluded by naming the case as pure negligence or case of tort law. Nimbus, Mercury and Venus all are liable for the accident of Pluto. Mercury is the main defendant here who harmed Pluto but Pluto can sue three of them under Res Ipsa Loquitur, where counter claim cannot be done on the plaintiff by the defendant. By this way legally the case can be solved under law and Pluto can get justice under English law (Van den Heever and Carstens, 2011). References Birks, P. and Pretto, A. (2002).Breach of trust. Oxford: Hart Pub. Blair, C. and Squires, D. (2006).The negligence liability of public authorities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cameron, N. (2004).Res ipsa loquitur. 3rd ed. Cullen, I. (2002).Civil Liability Act 2002. Sydney: NSW Young Lawyers. Farrell, S., Ladenburg, G. and Yeo, N. (2007).Blackstone's guide to the Fraud Act 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Godkin, D. and Markwell, H. (2003).The duty to care of healthcare professionals. [Toronto, Ont.]: [Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care]. Mukherjee, T. (2006).Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with rules and exhaustive commentary on motor accident compensation. Allahabad: Premier Pub. Co. Personal injury and Civil Liability act. (2011). [Kensington, N.S.W.]: University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law, Continuing Legal Education. Post-legislative assessment of the Fraud Act 2006. (2012). London: Stationery Office. Pratt, S. (2000).Duty of care. East Roseville, N.S.W.: Simon Schuster. Schlueter, L. (2005).Punitive damages. Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis. Van den Heever, P. and Carstens, P. (2011).Res ipsa loquitur and medical negligence. Cape Town: Juta. Vicarious liability. (2001). [Brisbane]: The Commission. Weissenberger, G., McFarland, B. and Page, J. (2001).The law of premises liability. Cincinnati: Anderson Pub. Co.